The report describes how one of the supposed fundamental constants of Nature appears not to be constant after all. Instead, this 'magic number' known as the fine-structure constant -- 'alpha' for short -- appears to vary throughout the universe.

"After measuring alpha in around 300 distant galaxies, a consistency emerged: this magic number, which tells us the strength of electromagnetism, is not the same everywhere as it is here on Earth, and seems to vary continuously along a preferred axis through the universe," Professor John Webb from the University of New South Wales said.

"The implications for our current understanding of science are profound. If the laws of physics turn out to be merely 'local by-laws', it might be that whilst our observable part of the universe favours the existence of life and human beings, other far more distant regions may exist where different laws preclude the formation of life, at least as we know it."

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

The report describes how one of the supposed fundamental constants of Nature appears not to be constant after all. Instead, this 'magic number' known as the fine-structure constant -- 'alpha' for short -- appears to vary throughout the universe.

"After measuring alpha in around 300 distant galaxies, a consistency emerged: this magic number, which tells us the strength of electromagnetism, is not the same everywhere as it is here on Earth, and seems to vary continuously along a preferred axis through the universe," Professor John Webb from the University of New South Wales said.

"The implications for our current understanding of science are profound. If the laws of physics turn out to be merely 'local by-laws', it might be that whilst our observable part of the universe favours the existence of life and human beings, other far more distant regions may exist where different laws preclude the formation of life, at least as we know it."

I remember a few years ago when they started noticing this. It always amuses me when people talk about their disbelief in God because of science. Yet, using this as an example, science is always sure... right up to the point that it's wrong, and then 100% sure again.

In my opinion, physical laws are part of Creation, therefore, subject to change and, yes, to one day dissapear if let to themselves.

If laws were above creation, that would mean an entire new level of reality above physical reality, something materialists would deny, but many phiosophers woud welcome.

If laws were above creation, they could be either "mechanical" lifeless, consciousless laws, or be self-conscious living laws aka God.

If the laws were God Himself we would have a problem because this is a fallen universe where entropy reigns. We would have to assume that the Fall and Death are what God wants.

Because, through revelation, we know that is not the case, God does not want death, and He does not want the Fall, I can only conclude that the laws, and constants of physics are part of the created world. They were meant to be lifegiving, but after the fall they are corrupted. Entropy is for the physical universe what sin is for the soul. Therefore the laws are subject to change themselves.

Logged

Many energies, three persons, two natures, one God, one Church, one Baptism.

In my opinion, physical laws are part of Creation, therefore, subject to change and, yes, to one day dissapear if let to themselves.

If laws were above creation, that would mean an entire new level of reality above physical reality, something materialists would deny, but many phiosophers woud welcome.

If laws were above creation, they could be either "mechanical" lifeless, consciousless laws, or be self-conscious living laws aka God.

If the laws were God Himself we would have a problem because this is a fallen universe where entropy reigns. We would have to assume that the Fall and Death are what God wants.

Because, through revelation, we know that is not the case, God does not want death, and He does not want the Fall, I can only conclude that the laws, and constants of physics are part of the created world. They were meant to be lifegiving, but after the fall they are corrupted. Entropy is for the physical universe what sin is for the soul. Therefore the laws are subject to change themselves.

Perhaps that is why some scientists want a God bound by physical laws?

I wonder if it is not that 'alpha' is not constant, but that because we do not understand yet enough of the Laws of the Universe, there is no 'alpha' as we had thought.

Or perhaps there is another set rules above the current laws of physics that governs those laws, and determines how alpha veries. I am certain that scientists will eventually want to address this.

That's likely...I've always suspected a flaw in the consistency arguments of quantum mechanics, maybe this will help discover it and allow us to make real progress towards a unified theory, not that there's any grantee it will be the 'ultimate theory' I don't think we're that close yet, I don't think we've developed the fields of geometric topology and, especially, applied geometric topology adequately to properly model and develop such a theory.

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

I remember a few years ago when they started noticing this. It always amuses me when people talk about their disbelief in God because of science. Yet, using this as an example, science is always sure... right up to the point that it's wrong, and then 100% sure again.

I don't think you understand, this is science at its greatest, one observation by a small group of people can cast serious doubt on, and even undermine, an established and accepted theory. Science is only credible because it is falsifiable, a statement/theorem/hypothesis that cannot be falsified is useless, the fact that these theories have the potential to be disproven is what gave them value in the first place.

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

I remember a few years ago when they started noticing this. It always amuses me when people talk about their disbelief in God because of science. Yet, using this as an example, science is always sure... right up to the point that it's wrong, and then 100% sure again.

I don't think you understand, this is science at its greatest, one observation by a small group of people can cast serious doubt on, and even undermine, an established and accepted theory. Science is only credible because it is falsifiable, a statement/theorem/hypothesis that cannot be falsified is useless, the fact that these theories have the potential to be disproven is what gave them value in the first place.

Or the theory of being possibly disproven? Much of quantum physic is debating over equations on paper. "no no, I disproved your 10 dimensions because if I do this 11 dimensions work better! There I proved! The universe has 11 dimensions! How does this fit into reality? Uh... Well you see.."

I wonder if it is not that 'alpha' is not constant, but that because we do not understand yet enough of the Laws of the Universe, there is no 'alpha' as we had thought.

Or perhaps there is another set rules above the current laws of physics that governs those laws, and determines how alpha veries. I am certain that scientists will eventually want to address this.

That's likely...I've always suspected a flaw in the consistency arguments of quantum mechanics, maybe this will help discover it and allow us to make real progress towards a unified theory, not that there's any grantee it will be the 'ultimate theory' I don't think we're that close yet, I don't think we've developed the fields of geometric topology and, especially, applied geometric topology adequately to properly model and develop such a theory.

It would be interesting to fast-forward a few thousand years and see where physics goes from here. How many sets of rules will govern how many sets of other rules. Will it be like a three dimensional tree diagram? will certain sets of rules be interdependent? Who knows. But it's definitely cool to think about.

Or the theory of being possibly disproven? Much of quantum physic is debating over equations on paper. "no no, I disproved your 10 dimensions because if I do this 11 dimensions work better! There I proved! The universe has 11 dimensions! How does this fit into reality? Uh... Well you see.."

I remember a few years ago when they started noticing this. It always amuses me when people talk about their disbelief in God because of science. Yet, using this as an example, science is always sure... right up to the point that it's wrong, and then 100% sure again.

I don't think you understand, this is science at its greatest, one observation by a small group of people can cast serious doubt on, and even undermine, an established and accepted theory. Science is only credible because it is falsifiable, a statement/theorem/hypothesis that cannot be falsified is useless, the fact that these theories have the potential to be disproven is what gave them value in the first place.

Or the theory of being possibly disproven? Much of quantum physic is debating over equations on paper. "no no, I disproved your 10 dimensions because if I do this 11 dimensions work better! There I proved! The universe has 11 dimensions! How does this fit into reality? Uh... Well you see.."

I personally come from the field of theoretical mathematics, I would never throw around the word 'proof' so lightly. If your work depends on physical observations, as all of physics does, it is inherently impossible to have proofs, you can have hypotheses and theories and if a theory becomes very well established, it may even be referred to as a law, but you can never meet the MUCH stronger criteria of a proof.

As for your example, theoretical astrophysics, I will agree that 'String Theory' has achieved a dangerous level of orthodoxy within science, science needs scientists like these who can challenge established theories, that's what makes science science. As for those who debate theoretical astrophysics, they're certainly essential, we need models if observations are to be of any use at all, but from time to time they can become too attached to their pet theories; however, observations like these can change the mind of even the most devout follower of an existing model. The history of science does not treat kindly those who advocate incorrect theories, especially after conflicting observations have been discovered.

With that said, if you have a problem with a certain element of string theory, please bring it up, I'd be happy to discuss my views on it, I may agree with you or I may disagree, but in either case I'll have a reason why, a reason derived from mathematics, theoretical physics, and observational data.

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

I wonder if it is not that 'alpha' is not constant, but that because we do not understand yet enough of the Laws of the Universe, there is no 'alpha' as we had thought.

Or perhaps there is another set rules above the current laws of physics that governs those laws, and determines how alpha veries. I am certain that scientists will eventually want to address this.

That's likely...I've always suspected a flaw in the consistency arguments of quantum mechanics, maybe this will help discover it and allow us to make real progress towards a unified theory, not that there's any grantee it will be the 'ultimate theory' I don't think we're that close yet, I don't think we've developed the fields of geometric topology and, especially, applied geometric topology adequately to properly model and develop such a theory.

It would be interesting to fast-forward a few thousand years and see where physics goes from here. How many sets of rules will govern how many sets of other rules. Will it be like a three dimensional tree diagram? will certain sets of rules be interdependent? Who knows. But it's definitely cool to think about.

It would be cool for sure, I suspect it will be described in a more developed language of topological manifolds, but far more complicated than the (relatively) facile Lorentzian manifolds. Of course, this is pure speculation at this point, I honestly have no idea how it will end up, maybe it's really more simple than all of this, but, somehow, I suspect that isn't the case.

When you manage to get your hands on a time machine, we'll go for a ride and see (of course, if we have a time machine, the architecture of its 'engines', for lack of a better term, may give us all the answers we need, making the trip redundant. ).

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

When you manage to get your hands on a time machine, we'll go for a ride and see (of course, if we have a time machine, the architecture of its 'engines', for lack of a better term, may give us all the answers we need, making the trip redundant. ).

You're right, of course; but I'd still take as many trips in whatever vehicle has those 'engines', and I'd travel as often as I possibly could.

Logged

"As the sparrow flees from a hawk, so the man seeking humility flees from an argument". St John Climacus

“Near these march thescientists, reverenced for their beards and the fur on their gowns, who teachthat they alone are wise while the rest of mortal men flit about as shadows.How pleasantly they dote, indeed, while they construct their numberlessworlds, and measure the sun, moon, stars, and spheres as with thumb andline. They assign causes for lightning, winds, eclipses, and other inexplicablethings, never hesitating a whit, as if they were privy to the secrets of nature,artificer of things, or as if they visited us fresh from the council of the gods.Yet all the while nature is laughing grandly at them and their conjectures. Forto prove that they have good intelligence of nothing, this is a sufficientargument: they can never explain why they disagree with each other on everysubject. Thus knowing nothing in general, they profess to know all things inparticular; though they are ignorant even of themselves, and on occasion donot see the ditch or the stone lying across their path, because many of themare blear-eyed or absent-minded; yet they proclaim that they perceive ideas,universals, forms without matter, primary substances, quiddities, andecceities – things so tenuous, I fear, that Lynceus himself could not see them.When they especially disdain the vulgar crowd is when they bring out theirtriangles, quadrangles, circles, and mathematical pictures of the sort, lay oneupon the other, intertwine them into a maze, then deploy – and all to involvethe uninitiated in darkness. Their fraternity does not lack those who predictfuture events by consulting the stars, and promise wonders even moremagical; and these lucky scientists find people to believe them.”

Yeah, those crazy scientists, who actually think they know what causes wind and eclipses and lightning.

! That made my morning.

Logged

As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future.-- Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS

Would this imply that it would be extremely difficult for humans to survive in an area with different laws?

It would seem as if we would have to stay in areas with the same laws as our region.

Back when I took Electo Magnetics, there was a problem in where we had to solve something that noone could solve. And the issue had to do with getting a different answer than what we should of got. The Professor told us that the universal constant that we were working with slightly fluctuates in real time. And so we really didn't have to worry about it.

And this professor was an atheist from Eastern Europe. When I told atheists this on myspace,, they were laughing at me and calling me a stupid and dumb young earth creationist because Constants don't change. And they kept pointing to the words "universal constant" and how that means it doesn't change, but I told them that we use these fixed numbers because it makes it easier for us to solve problems. But in the real world these things can slightly fluctuate.

I also told them that in real experiements we were told to use 9.68 instead of 9.8 when talking about gravity....etc, and they called me a stupid young earth creationist for everyone knows that it's 9.8 and can't change.

But that was on myspace many many years ago. Now I wonder what they will say when it comes to this issue? They will probably forget that such a dispute ever happened......and they will still continue to call us dumb and stupid young earth creationists........etc.

Well, I'm no longer a Young Earth Creationist. At least not a strict one, but they will probably forget that this change in perception ever happened.

Every 5 years something in science keeps changing. I wouldn't be worried about it if the atheists and agnostics that call us dumb and stupid weren't so dogmatic about things they really don't know.

We wouldn't have to keep changing what we believe every 5 years if we really knew it.

Science should be about a build up of knowledge upon knowledge. Instead, what it has become is nothing more than a change of the very foundation of previous knowledge every 5 years.

It shouldn't be that way. We shouldn't have to change previous knowledge if the previous knowledge was correct. The fact that it wasn't correct shows an error in how we teach Science. An error in the philosophy of Science.

An error in being dogmatic in things we really don't know.

« Last Edit: September 14, 2010, 09:39:38 AM by jnorm888 »

Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

Yeah, those crazy scientists, who actually think they know what causes wind and eclipses and lightning.

I don't think anyone is saying that science, in general, is not a capable and wonderful method for understanding the universe around us. Those that argue, I would imagine, argue that science doesn't have all the answers, some of the answers may be wrong, and/or some answers may be impossible to know (at least, at this time). Which, ironically enough, is or should be the "orthodox" view of science itself.

Therefore, to then take science as the sole vouching authority on how the universe works, could lead one astray.

Those that argue, I would imagine, argue that science doesn't have all the answers, some of the answers may be wrong, and/or some answers may be impossible to know (at least, at this time).

But the quote to which I was responding was...

Quote

They assign causes for lightning, winds, eclipses, and other inexplicable things,

Inexplicable? Are you really prepared to say that lightning cannot be explained? Or that for someone to claim to do so is the equivalent of claiming to be "fresh from the council of the gods"?

That was written about 500 years ago. Relax. It's meant to be a reflection on the whole spirit behind the scientific endeavor, not on whether there happens to be current scientific agreement on this or that particular issue.

When you manage to get your hands on a time machine, we'll go for a ride and see (of course, if we have a time machine, the architecture of its 'engines', for lack of a better term, may give us all the answers we need, making the trip redundant. ).

You're right, of course; but I'd still take as many trips in whatever vehicle has those 'engines', and I'd travel as often as I possibly could.

Oh, I would too...plus, it would be easier to jump forward a thousand years into the future and just have the information downloaded into your brain. I'd have to imagine that a ship capable of controlled navigation through the fourth dimension would be rather complex, if it can exist at all.

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

Those that argue, I would imagine, argue that science doesn't have all the answers, some of the answers may be wrong, and/or some answers may be impossible to know (at least, at this time).

But the quote to which I was responding was...

Quote

They assign causes for lightning, winds, eclipses, and other inexplicable things,

Inexplicable? Are you really prepared to say that lightning cannot be explained? Or that for someone to claim to do so is the equivalent of claiming to be "fresh from the council of the gods"?

That was written about 500 years ago. Relax. It's meant to be a reflection on the whole spirit behind the scientific endeavor, not on whether there happens to be current scientific agreement on this or that particular issue.

That it was written 500 years ago better makes the point about the anti-science position, this idiot you're quoting claimed that wind, eclipses, and lightning were inexplicable, today every school child knows the causes of these things. I suspect that in another 500 opponents to modern science will be laughed at in the same breath as Erasmus.

« Last Edit: September 14, 2010, 10:10:39 PM by GiC »

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

When you manage to get your hands on a time machine, we'll go for a ride and see (of course, if we have a time machine, the architecture of its 'engines', for lack of a better term, may give us all the answers we need, making the trip redundant. ).

I am surprised here that you believe that a time machine is possible. Any travel into the past could lead to logical impossibilities. Suppose for example that you did travel into the past and you did meet one of your great-grandfathers. Suppose then that you arranged for him to be sterilised and not be capable of having children. Or suppose that you met L. H. Oswald and you had him put in jail under lock and key on November 22, 1963. It looks to me like the simple laws of logic would rule out any possibility of time travel into the past.

Those that argue, I would imagine, argue that science doesn't have all the answers, some of the answers may be wrong, and/or some answers may be impossible to know (at least, at this time).

But the quote to which I was responding was...

Quote

They assign causes for lightning, winds, eclipses, and other inexplicable things,

Inexplicable? Are you really prepared to say that lightning cannot be explained? Or that for someone to claim to do so is the equivalent of claiming to be "fresh from the council of the gods"?

That was written about 500 years ago. Relax. It's meant to be a reflection on the whole spirit behind the scientific endeavor, not on whether there happens to be current scientific agreement on this or that particular issue.

That it was written 500 years ago better makes the point about the anti-science position, this idiot you're quoting claimed that wind, eclipses, and lightning were inexplicable, today every school child knows the causes of these things. I suspect that in another 500 opponents to modern science will be laughed at in the same breath as Erasmus.

You know, in the early 16th century most 'scientists' were still adamant that the Sun revolved around the Earth.

Those that argue, I would imagine, argue that science doesn't have all the answers, some of the answers may be wrong, and/or some answers may be impossible to know (at least, at this time).

But the quote to which I was responding was...

Quote

They assign causes for lightning, winds, eclipses, and other inexplicable things,

Inexplicable? Are you really prepared to say that lightning cannot be explained? Or that for someone to claim to do so is the equivalent of claiming to be "fresh from the council of the gods"?

That was written about 500 years ago. Relax. It's meant to be a reflection on the whole spirit behind the scientific endeavor, not on whether there happens to be current scientific agreement on this or that particular issue.

That it was written 500 years ago better makes the point about the anti-science position, this idiot you're quoting claimed that wind, eclipses, and lightning were inexplicable, today every school child knows the causes of these things. I suspect that in another 500 opponents to modern science will be laughed at in the same breath as Erasmus.

You know, in the early 16th century most 'scientists' were still adamant that the Sun revolved around the Earth.

The simple fact that scientific advances led us to discard this theory, however, is nothing less than a testimony to the proper practice of science.

Those that argue, I would imagine, argue that science doesn't have all the answers, some of the answers may be wrong, and/or some answers may be impossible to know (at least, at this time).

But the quote to which I was responding was...

Quote

They assign causes for lightning, winds, eclipses, and other inexplicable things,

Inexplicable? Are you really prepared to say that lightning cannot be explained? Or that for someone to claim to do so is the equivalent of claiming to be "fresh from the council of the gods"?

That was written about 500 years ago. Relax. It's meant to be a reflection on the whole spirit behind the scientific endeavor, not on whether there happens to be current scientific agreement on this or that particular issue.

That it was written 500 years ago better makes the point about the anti-science position, this idiot you're quoting claimed that wind, eclipses, and lightning were inexplicable, today every school child knows the causes of these things. I suspect that in another 500 opponents to modern science will be laughed at in the same breath as Erasmus.

You know, in the early 16th century most 'scientists' were still adamant that the Sun revolved around the Earth.

The simple fact that scientific advances led us to discard this theory, however, is nothing less than a testimony to the proper practice of science.

*sigh* I hate explaining my jokes…

The point is that these scientists, who we now believe were objectively wrong, at the time demanded to be treated as being right, simply on their own authority. It is this arrogant spirit that Erasmus is lampooning. Scientists today who demand to be treated with the same deference are just as liable to be proved wrong in the future as the scientists of the 16th century. If they adopted a humbler and more pious attitude, then there wouldn't be a need to poke so much fun at them.

Those that argue, I would imagine, argue that science doesn't have all the answers, some of the answers may be wrong, and/or some answers may be impossible to know (at least, at this time).

But the quote to which I was responding was...

Quote

They assign causes for lightning, winds, eclipses, and other inexplicable things,

Inexplicable? Are you really prepared to say that lightning cannot be explained? Or that for someone to claim to do so is the equivalent of claiming to be "fresh from the council of the gods"?

That was written about 500 years ago. Relax. It's meant to be a reflection on the whole spirit behind the scientific endeavor, not on whether there happens to be current scientific agreement on this or that particular issue.

That it was written 500 years ago better makes the point about the anti-science position, this idiot you're quoting claimed that wind, eclipses, and lightning were inexplicable, today every school child knows the causes of these things. I suspect that in another 500 opponents to modern science will be laughed at in the same breath as Erasmus.

You know, in the early 16th century most 'scientists' were still adamant that the Sun revolved around the Earth.

The simple fact that scientific advances led us to discard this theory, however, is nothing less than a testimony to the proper practice of science.

*sigh* I hate explaining my jokes…

The point is that these scientists, who we now believe were objectively wrong, at the time demanded to be treated as being right, simply on their own authority. It is this arrogant spirit that Erasmus is lampooning. Scientists today who demand to be treated with the same deference are just as liable to be proved wrong in the future as the scientists of the 16th century. If they adopted a humbler and more pious attitude, then there wouldn't be a need to poke so much fun at them.

But these astronomers essentially told the theoretical physicists that they were wrong, no one has attacked or belittled them, not even those people whose theories they may have potentially undermined. The difference is that they told these scientists that they were wrong in the correct manner. Science thrives on new discoveries, improving, or even replacing, existing theories. But it's not enough to say 'Theory X is wrong.' For years I have taken issue with certain fundamental assumptions of Quantum Mechanics (the fundamental assumptions of General Relativity are too fundamental, but I will admit that they're localized enough to possibly fail to give a complete insight into the entire universe, depending on the nature of the Manifolds that define the universe...assuming of course they're manifolds, but nothing thus far suggests otherwise).

But, with that said, I would never dream of telling the scientific community they were wrong about this matter because my opinion is utterly worthless and meaningless UNLESS I can come up with a conflicting observation, a more complete verifiable theory, or, better yet, both a conflicting observation AND a more complete verifiable theory that explains the conflicting observation as well as all other discovered natural laws.

In science, it's not enough to merely be right, being right doesn't mean a lot if you can't explain and demonstrate why you are right, you must also be able to demonstrate it by repeatable, verifiable observations.

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

As long as scientists never demand that their theories be treated on the same level as revealed truth, but of only impermanent and relative value, i.e. until someone comes along and disproves them, then I don't see a problem.

When you manage to get your hands on a time machine, we'll go for a ride and see (of course, if we have a time machine, the architecture of its 'engines', for lack of a better term, may give us all the answers we need, making the trip redundant. ).

I am surprised here that you believe that a time machine is possible. Any travel into the past could lead to logical impossibilities. Suppose for example that you did travel into the past and you did meet one of your great-grandfathers. Suppose then that you arranged for him to be sterilised and not be capable of having children. Or suppose that you met L. H. Oswald and you had him put in jail under lock and key on November 22, 1963. It looks to me like the simple laws of logic would rule out any possibility of time travel into the past.

I suspect that time travel is possible, whether or not matter and energy can survive it in the same form that it began the trip is another question entirely.

As for the 'logical paradox', I don't see it as an issue. Why assume causality with what may simply be a move along a coordinate system? Perhaps the four dimensions are merely a recursive function, if I feed an output back as an input, it doesn't create a contradiction, merely a different output (in most cases) and this recursive behavior is not dependent on time, though in computer programs we envision it as a sequence of time, groups, rings, and fields are inherently independent of any physical reality. Then there's the 'many worlds' explanation of QM: 'anything that can occur does occur'. With an infinite number of worlds, everything that can potentially happen does happen, by changing the past, you're merely entering into a 'parallel reality' and didn't affect the 'reality' from which you came at all, because your returning and your not returning must, by necessity, both occur.

Four dimensional space-time with a dimension of causality is just too simplistic a concept to explain the physical observations of the last hundred years. Especially with this new possibility of variable physical 'constants'.

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

As long as scientists never demand that their theories be treated on the same level as revealed truth, but of only impermanent and relative value, i.e. until someone comes along and disproves them, then I don't see a problem.

The only 'revealed truth' is mathematics and nothing in this universe or any universe, this reality or any reality, can ascend to that level of absoluteness. Everything but theoretical mathematics is merely a probabilistic analysis. The scientific method controls the variables better than is done in other disciplines (and not all branches of science are equal) thus it gives more probable results. So, to apply this to a subject you seem to be stuck on, say science and religion conflict. The scientific observations are observable and verifiable, sure we could have 10 observations all having the exact same errors in measurement, but that's not very probable. There could be something particular to our coordinates in space-time that manipulate energy and matter in such a way that it appears to follow different laws locally than it does in the rest of the universe, but based on astronomical observations, this doesn't seem very probable either.

Science is not mathematics, so it's not absolute, but through repeated observation and verification it's highly probable that the observations are real and thus that science is 'truth' (that's a word with so much nonsensical philosophical baggage that it's very use is nearly an abuse of the concept). Religion on the other hand relies on myths that are not observable or verifiable, they cannot be mathematically extrapolated based on current observations, thus it seems much less probable that they are true.

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

When you manage to get your hands on a time machine, we'll go for a ride and see (of course, if we have a time machine, the architecture of its 'engines', for lack of a better term, may give us all the answers we need, making the trip redundant. ).

I am surprised here that you believe that a time machine is possible. Any travel into the past could lead to logical impossibilities. Suppose for example that you did travel into the past and you did meet one of your great-grandfathers. Suppose then that you arranged for him to be sterilised and not be capable of having children. Or suppose that you met L. H. Oswald and you had him put in jail under lock and key on November 22, 1963. It looks to me like the simple laws of logic would rule out any possibility of time travel into the past.

I suspect that time travel is possible, whether or not matter and energy can survive it in the same form that it began the trip is another question entirely.

As for the 'logical paradox', I don't see it as an issue. Why assume causality with what may simply be a move along a coordinate system? Perhaps the four dimensions are merely a recursive function, if I feed an output back as an input, it doesn't create a contradiction, merely a different output (in most cases) and this recursive behavior is not dependent on time, though in computer programs we envision it as a sequence of time, groups, rings, and fields are inherently independent of any physical reality. Then there's the 'many worlds' explanation of QM: 'anything that can occur does occur'. With an infinite number of worlds, everything that can potentially happen does happen, by changing the past, you're merely entering into a 'parallel reality' and didn't affect the 'reality' from which you came at all, because your returning and your not returning must, by necessity, both occur.

Four dimensional space-time with a dimension of causality is just too simplistic a concept to explain the physical observations of the last hundred years. Especially with this new possibility of variable physical 'constants'.

How old are you now? Let's say you are 35 years old? Ok. Then you go back in time thirty years and you see yourself as a 5 year old. You then decide to kill yourself. Then since you died 30 years ago, how can you be 35 years old now?Or suppose you go 35 years into the future. You then see yourself as an old man. Then you are talking to the old man. So are there two of you now or only one? Anyway, the old man, says he made a mistake in spending too much time on subject A and advises you no to spend all that much time, So now you go back to where you were as a 35 year old, and you decide that the old man was right and so you do not spend all that much time on subject A. But now fast forward 35 years from now. Then has the old man spent too much time on subject A or not?So any time travel is impossible since it could result in a logical contradiction, e.g., you killed yourself in the past, but you are still living now in the present.

How old are you now? Let's say you are 35 years old? Ok. Then you go back in time thirty years and you see yourself as a 5 year old. You then decide to kill yourself. Then since you died 30 years ago, how can you be 35 years old now?Or suppose you go 35 years into the future. You then see yourself as an old man. Then you are talking to the old man. So are there two of you now or only one? Anyway, the old man, says he made a mistake in spending too much time on subject A and advises you no to spend all that much time, So now you go back to where you were as a 35 year old, and you decide that the old man was right and so you do not spend all that much time on subject A. But now fast forward 35 years from now. Then has the old man spent too much time on subject A or not?So any time travel is impossible since it could result in a logical contradiction, e.g., you killed yourself in the past, but you are still living now in the present.

Quote

I know where I came from—but where did all you zombies come from?

I felt a headache coming on, but a headache powder is one thing I do not take. I did once—and you all went away.

So I crawled into bed and whistled out the light.

You aren’t really there at all. There isn’t anybody but me—Jane—here alone in the dark.

I miss you dreadfully!

Logged

If you have PMed me, the mods have taken my ability to PM away. Please see my email if you wish to contact me during my time of trial.

As long as scientists never demand that their theories be treated on the same level as revealed truth, but of only impermanent and relative value, i.e. until someone comes along and disproves them, then I don't see a problem.

The only 'revealed truth' is mathematics and nothing in this universe or any universe, this reality or any reality, can ascend to that level of absoluteness. Everything but theoretical mathematics is merely a probabilistic analysis. The scientific method controls the variables better than is done in other disciplines (and not all branches of science are equal) thus it gives more probable results. So, to apply this to a subject you seem to be stuck on, say science and religion conflict. The scientific observations are observable and verifiable, sure we could have 10 observations all having the exact same errors in measurement, but that's not very probable. There could be something particular to our coordinates in space-time that manipulate energy and matter in such a way that it appears to follow different laws locally than it does in the rest of the universe, but based on astronomical observations, this doesn't seem very probable either.

Science is not mathematics, so it's not absolute, but through repeated observation and verification it's highly probable that the observations are real and thus that science is 'truth' (that's a word with so much nonsensical philosophical baggage that it's very use is nearly an abuse of the concept). Religion on the other hand relies on myths that are not observable or verifiable, they cannot be mathematically extrapolated based on current observations, thus it seems much less probable that they are true.

But axiomatic systems have inherent limitations due to the incompleteness theorems of Goedel.

How old are you now? Let's say you are 35 years old? Ok. Then you go back in time thirty years and you see yourself as a 5 year old. You then decide to kill yourself. Then since you died 30 years ago, how can you be 35 years old now?Or suppose you go 35 years into the future. You then see yourself as an old man. Then you are talking to the old man. So are there two of you now or only one? Anyway, the old man, says he made a mistake in spending too much time on subject A and advises you no to spend all that much time, So now you go back to where you were as a 35 year old, and you decide that the old man was right and so you do not spend all that much time on subject A. But now fast forward 35 years from now. Then has the old man spent too much time on subject A or not?So any time travel is impossible since it could result in a logical contradiction, e.g., you killed yourself in the past, but you are still living now in the present.

Quote

I know where I came from—but where did all you zombies come from?

I felt a headache coming on, but a headache powder is one thing I do not take. I did once—and you all went away.

So I crawled into bed and whistled out the light.

You aren’t really there at all. There isn’t anybody but me—Jane—here alone in the dark.

As long as scientists never demand that their theories be treated on the same level as revealed truth, but of only impermanent and relative value, i.e. until someone comes along and disproves them, then I don't see a problem.

The only 'revealed truth' is mathematics and nothing in this universe or any universe, this reality or any reality, can ascend to that level of absoluteness. Everything but theoretical mathematics is merely a probabilistic analysis. The scientific method controls the variables better than is done in other disciplines (and not all branches of science are equal) thus it gives more probable results. So, to apply this to a subject you seem to be stuck on, say science and religion conflict. The scientific observations are observable and verifiable, sure we could have 10 observations all having the exact same errors in measurement, but that's not very probable. There could be something particular to our coordinates in space-time that manipulate energy and matter in such a way that it appears to follow different laws locally than it does in the rest of the universe, but based on astronomical observations, this doesn't seem very probable either.

Science is not mathematics, so it's not absolute, but through repeated observation and verification it's highly probable that the observations are real and thus that science is 'truth' (that's a word with so much nonsensical philosophical baggage that it's very use is nearly an abuse of the concept). Religion on the other hand relies on myths that are not observable or verifiable, they cannot be mathematically extrapolated based on current observations, thus it seems much less probable that they are true.

What you are missing is that the value of your scientific and even mathematical observations are limited by your own fallen intellect. Revealed truth, on the other hand, is not subject to fallen reasoning. That is why I am insisting they be relegated to different planes of knowledge.

And the verifiability of religion really depends on the religion. With respect to Christianity, for example, we rely on the evidentiary value of the witnesses of the Resurrection. If you want to argue that the Resurrection never happened, you have to account for why all these alleged witnesses risked and often faced death for the sake of a lie.

And the verifiability of religion really depends on the religion. With respect to Christianity, for example, we rely on the evidentiary value of the witnesses of the Resurrection.

I would have thought that Christianity relies on the living presence of the Holy Spirit.

Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

And the verifiability of religion really depends on the religion. With respect to Christianity, for example, we rely on the evidentiary value of the witnesses of the Resurrection.

I would have thought that Christianity relies on the living presence of the Holy Spirit.

Yes, do I deny that? But don't we have witnesses? Or are you saying that Christ's disciples were persuaded of the Resurrection without the need of any testimony?

I'm saying that merely reading someone's testimony won't do the trick, unless the Holy Spirit is involved. Otherwise, there are plenty of testimonies by Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc., that are waiting to convert you to their respective faiths.

Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

As long as scientists never demand that their theories be treated on the same level as revealed truth, but of only impermanent and relative value, i.e. until someone comes along and disproves them, then I don't see a problem.

The only 'revealed truth' is mathematics and nothing in this universe or any universe, this reality or any reality, can ascend to that level of absoluteness. Everything but theoretical mathematics is merely a probabilistic analysis. The scientific method controls the variables better than is done in other disciplines (and not all branches of science are equal) thus it gives more probable results. So, to apply this to a subject you seem to be stuck on, say science and religion conflict. The scientific observations are observable and verifiable, sure we could have 10 observations all having the exact same errors in measurement, but that's not very probable. There could be something particular to our coordinates in space-time that manipulate energy and matter in such a way that it appears to follow different laws locally than it does in the rest of the universe, but based on astronomical observations, this doesn't seem very probable either.

Science is not mathematics, so it's not absolute, but through repeated observation and verification it's highly probable that the observations are real and thus that science is 'truth' (that's a word with so much nonsensical philosophical baggage that it's very use is nearly an abuse of the concept). Religion on the other hand relies on myths that are not observable or verifiable, they cannot be mathematically extrapolated based on current observations, thus it seems much less probable that they are true.

But axiomatic systems have inherent limitations due to the incompleteness theorems of Goedel.

As long as scientists never demand that their theories be treated on the same level as revealed truth, but of only impermanent and relative value, i.e. until someone comes along and disproves them, then I don't see a problem.

The only 'revealed truth' is mathematics and nothing in this universe or any universe, this reality or any reality, can ascend to that level of absoluteness. Everything but theoretical mathematics is merely a probabilistic analysis. The scientific method controls the variables better than is done in other disciplines (and not all branches of science are equal) thus it gives more probable results. So, to apply this to a subject you seem to be stuck on, say science and religion conflict. The scientific observations are observable and verifiable, sure we could have 10 observations all having the exact same errors in measurement, but that's not very probable. There could be something particular to our coordinates in space-time that manipulate energy and matter in such a way that it appears to follow different laws locally than it does in the rest of the universe, but based on astronomical observations, this doesn't seem very probable either.

Science is not mathematics, so it's not absolute, but through repeated observation and verification it's highly probable that the observations are real and thus that science is 'truth' (that's a word with so much nonsensical philosophical baggage that it's very use is nearly an abuse of the concept). Religion on the other hand relies on myths that are not observable or verifiable, they cannot be mathematically extrapolated based on current observations, thus it seems much less probable that they are true.

But axiomatic systems have inherent limitations due to the incompleteness theorems of Goedel.

This is a good point. Can the problem be resolved?

Empirical science is the solution.

Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

As long as scientists never demand that their theories be treated on the same level as revealed truth, but of only impermanent and relative value, i.e. until someone comes along and disproves them, then I don't see a problem.

The only 'revealed truth' is mathematics and nothing in this universe or any universe, this reality or any reality, can ascend to that level of absoluteness. Everything but theoretical mathematics is merely a probabilistic analysis. The scientific method controls the variables better than is done in other disciplines (and not all branches of science are equal) thus it gives more probable results. So, to apply this to a subject you seem to be stuck on, say science and religion conflict. The scientific observations are observable and verifiable, sure we could have 10 observations all having the exact same errors in measurement, but that's not very probable. There could be something particular to our coordinates in space-time that manipulate energy and matter in such a way that it appears to follow different laws locally than it does in the rest of the universe, but based on astronomical observations, this doesn't seem very probable either.

Science is not mathematics, so it's not absolute, but through repeated observation and verification it's highly probable that the observations are real and thus that science is 'truth' (that's a word with so much nonsensical philosophical baggage that it's very use is nearly an abuse of the concept). Religion on the other hand relies on myths that are not observable or verifiable, they cannot be mathematically extrapolated based on current observations, thus it seems much less probable that they are true.

But axiomatic systems have inherent limitations due to the incompleteness theorems of Goedel.

This is a good point. Can the problem be resolved?

Empirical science is the solution.

Aw, the old dichotomy: empericism vs. rationalism. I am unaware of any peer reviewed paper that resolves this, though I don't yet have my masters in philosophy. I know that Kant tried, but failed.

As long as scientists never demand that their theories be treated on the same level as revealed truth, but of only impermanent and relative value, i.e. until someone comes along and disproves them, then I don't see a problem.

The only 'revealed truth' is mathematics and nothing in this universe or any universe, this reality or any reality, can ascend to that level of absoluteness. Everything but theoretical mathematics is merely a probabilistic analysis. The scientific method controls the variables better than is done in other disciplines (and not all branches of science are equal) thus it gives more probable results. So, to apply this to a subject you seem to be stuck on, say science and religion conflict. The scientific observations are observable and verifiable, sure we could have 10 observations all having the exact same errors in measurement, but that's not very probable. There could be something particular to our coordinates in space-time that manipulate energy and matter in such a way that it appears to follow different laws locally than it does in the rest of the universe, but based on astronomical observations, this doesn't seem very probable either.

Science is not mathematics, so it's not absolute, but through repeated observation and verification it's highly probable that the observations are real and thus that science is 'truth' (that's a word with so much nonsensical philosophical baggage that it's very use is nearly an abuse of the concept). Religion on the other hand relies on myths that are not observable or verifiable, they cannot be mathematically extrapolated based on current observations, thus it seems much less probable that they are true.

But axiomatic systems have inherent limitations due to the incompleteness theorems of Goedel.

This is a good point. Can the problem be resolved?

Empirical science is the solution.

Empirical Data must always be interpreted. The problem I see is making local present Data a Universal and timeless Data.

If we just stick to local Data as simply being local and in the present, then we could solve many of the errors in modern science.

What goes on in my backyard should only be explained as being the present reality for my back yard. It should never be explained as being the reality for everyones backyard. Nor should it be explained as some sort of timeless reality for all time.

This is why errors exist in modern science, and this will continue to be the reason why we will always see future errors in this system.

« Last Edit: September 15, 2010, 01:41:46 PM by jnorm888 »

Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

And the verifiability of religion really depends on the religion. With respect to Christianity, for example, we rely on the evidentiary value of the witnesses of the Resurrection.

I would have thought that Christianity relies on the living presence of the Holy Spirit.

Yes, do I deny that? But don't we have witnesses? Or are you saying that Christ's disciples were persuaded of the Resurrection without the need of any testimony?

I'm saying that merely reading someone's testimony won't do the trick, unless the Holy Spirit is involved. Otherwise, there are plenty of testimonies by Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc., that are waiting to convert you to their respective faiths.

You're right that merely calling somebody a witness doesn't mean he's reliable. You have to look at other factors. Like the fact, as I said, that the disciples of Christ who witnessed the Resurrection were putting their lives on the line, and often paid with their lives. Wouldn't they have recanted if they knew that they had lied about such a thing?

The testimonies of the false religions are just not reliable. That is why I do not believe them. And I am sure the action of the Holy Spirit has something to do with the fact that our witnesses are reliable, while the witnesses of falsehood are not.

As long as scientists never demand that their theories be treated on the same level as revealed truth, but of only impermanent and relative value, i.e. until someone comes along and disproves them, then I don't see a problem.

The only 'revealed truth' is mathematics and nothing in this universe or any universe, this reality or any reality, can ascend to that level of absoluteness. Everything but theoretical mathematics is merely a probabilistic analysis. The scientific method controls the variables better than is done in other disciplines (and not all branches of science are equal) thus it gives more probable results. So, to apply this to a subject you seem to be stuck on, say science and religion conflict. The scientific observations are observable and verifiable, sure we could have 10 observations all having the exact same errors in measurement, but that's not very probable. There could be something particular to our coordinates in space-time that manipulate energy and matter in such a way that it appears to follow different laws locally than it does in the rest of the universe, but based on astronomical observations, this doesn't seem very probable either.

Science is not mathematics, so it's not absolute, but through repeated observation and verification it's highly probable that the observations are real and thus that science is 'truth' (that's a word with so much nonsensical philosophical baggage that it's very use is nearly an abuse of the concept). Religion on the other hand relies on myths that are not observable or verifiable, they cannot be mathematically extrapolated based on current observations, thus it seems much less probable that they are true.

But axiomatic systems have inherent limitations due to the incompleteness theorems of Goedel.

This is a good point. Can the problem be resolved?

It essentially has, 'consistency' has been defined as 'as consistent as the natural numbers', granted one cannot prove the consistency of the natural numbers in any 'absolute' manner (whatever that means); but one can prove various axiomatic system to be as consistent as they are. Godel's Incompleteness theorem is an understood qualifier to every mathematical proof of consistency, sometimes explicitly stated, but it's in the realm of general knowledge so often omitted from the text.

It's theoretically possible that the natural numbers do create a contradiction, thus having only local consistency, if would be fascinating if someone could find such a contradiction, it would open up entire new fields in mathematics.

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

As long as scientists never demand that their theories be treated on the same level as revealed truth, but of only impermanent and relative value, i.e. until someone comes along and disproves them, then I don't see a problem.

The only 'revealed truth' is mathematics and nothing in this universe or any universe, this reality or any reality, can ascend to that level of absoluteness. Everything but theoretical mathematics is merely a probabilistic analysis. The scientific method controls the variables better than is done in other disciplines (and not all branches of science are equal) thus it gives more probable results. So, to apply this to a subject you seem to be stuck on, say science and religion conflict. The scientific observations are observable and verifiable, sure we could have 10 observations all having the exact same errors in measurement, but that's not very probable. There could be something particular to our coordinates in space-time that manipulate energy and matter in such a way that it appears to follow different laws locally than it does in the rest of the universe, but based on astronomical observations, this doesn't seem very probable either.

Science is not mathematics, so it's not absolute, but through repeated observation and verification it's highly probable that the observations are real and thus that science is 'truth' (that's a word with so much nonsensical philosophical baggage that it's very use is nearly an abuse of the concept). Religion on the other hand relies on myths that are not observable or verifiable, they cannot be mathematically extrapolated based on current observations, thus it seems much less probable that they are true.

But axiomatic systems have inherent limitations due to the incompleteness theorems of Goedel.

This is a good point. Can the problem be resolved?

It essentially has, 'consistency' has been defined as 'as consistent as the natural numbers', granted one cannot prove the consistency of the natural numbers in any 'absolute' manner (whatever that means); but one can prove various axiomatic system to be as consistent as they are. Godel's Incompleteness theorem is an understood qualifier to every mathematical proof of consistency, sometimes explicitly stated, but it's in the realm of general knowledge so often omitted from the text.

It's theoretically possible that the natural numbers do create a contradiction, thus having only local consistency, if would be fascinating if someone could find such a contradiction, it would open up entire new fields in mathematics.

What of the contradictions in set theory? I am not challenging you. BTW, I am generally interested in this topic.

And the verifiability of religion really depends on the religion. With respect to Christianity, for example, we rely on the evidentiary value of the witnesses of the Resurrection.

I would have thought that Christianity relies on the living presence of the Holy Spirit.

Yes, do I deny that? But don't we have witnesses? Or are you saying that Christ's disciples were persuaded of the Resurrection without the need of any testimony?

I'm saying that merely reading someone's testimony won't do the trick, unless the Holy Spirit is involved. Otherwise, there are plenty of testimonies by Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc., that are waiting to convert you to their respective faiths.

You're right that merely calling somebody a witness doesn't mean he's reliable. You have to look at other factors. Like the fact, as I said, that the disciples of Christ who witnessed the Resurrection were putting their lives on the line, and often paid with their lives. Wouldn't they have recanted if they knew that they had lied about such a thing?

The testimonies of the false religions are just not reliable. That is why I do not believe them. And I am sure the action of the Holy Spirit has something to do with the fact that our witnesses are reliable, while the witnesses of falsehood are not.

Neither is the testimony of Christianity reliable, people have suffered martyrdom for various religions, philosophies, and political ideologies. There are cults to this day that commit mass suicide based on the word of a single individual and there were several of these cults in the ancient world, Christianity is one that just happened to occur during the right time in the Roman Empire and eventually got lucky and Converted and Emperor, has a few things gone slightly differently, you would be worshiping Mithras today instead of Jesus. From a rational and empirical perspective, Christianity is no more valid than other Cults of the day, heck, it might not have even been the best one. But as the rise of communism demonstrated, the best or most reasonable system is not always the system that prevails, there are many other factors that come into play, not the least of which is a leader's charisma and the system's propaganda.

The problem I have discussing this issue is that no one can offer me repeatable and verifiable evidence. I know how you feel about your religion, I was once a devout Christian, but all that I ask is that people take a step back, undergo the thought experiment of Descartes, dismiss all presuppositions (not that I believe Descartes managed to do this, but I'll give him credit for trying), question everything you believe, demand proof for every thing said. Don't even take such things as gravity and EM forces for granted, go through the data yourself, analyze the experiments, recreate them yourself (assuming they're something you can recreate, most of us can't afford to build our own particle accelerator for example, we'll just have to rely on data from various sources and check it for consistency). Don't accept QM and GR because Einstein or Planck said it was true, or because it's the scientific consensus. Go through the equations and derivations yourself and don't just use the Algebra and Analysis involved because your college professor told you that's how things work. Go to the axioms, go through the proof demonstrating consistency tantamount to the real numbers, derive the procedures and equations you use from that axioms of mathematics.

I don't ask people simply take me at their word on this matter, I ask much more of people. I expect them to go through the mathematical theorems and physics theories themselves, understand them...after that, if you find a problem with the systems, you can actually say what the problem is, you can say 'this is the problem with assumption X, instead we should use assumption Y...if we do that, these are the equations we get, they satisfy all the data of the time PLUS they also explain Z, which did not fit into the equations derived from assumption X.'

If you want to criticize physics, GREAT, we need more people to criticize and refine existing theories, BUT I have what I consider to be a very reasonable expectation, I expect you understand what you're criticizing and be able to explain why you're criticizing it logically.

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

Yes, millions have died for false religions and ideologies. But I don't think anyone ever laid down their life for an empirical fact they knew to be false. At the time of Christ's resurrection, there was as yet no religion that demanded belief in the risen Christ. Everyone knew He was dead, and with a guard posted at the tomb under Pilate's seal to boot, there was absolutely no reason to doubt that His body was there. The Apostles all believed that Jesus Christ had failed. So you are asking me to believe that the disciples changed their minds, thought it would be a good idea to make up a story that Christ had risen, somehow persuade the guards that it was worth losing their lives if they could just open the tomb and let the disciples steal the body, and that they were happy to be killed or tortured in order to preserve this lie.

You see, although all these other religions and ideologies are false objectively speaking, but their followers believe them to be true. That is why they die for them. How do you account for people dying for something they believe to be false?

As long as scientists never demand that their theories be treated on the same level as revealed truth, but of only impermanent and relative value, i.e. until someone comes along and disproves them, then I don't see a problem.

The only 'revealed truth' is mathematics and nothing in this universe or any universe, this reality or any reality, can ascend to that level of absoluteness. Everything but theoretical mathematics is merely a probabilistic analysis. The scientific method controls the variables better than is done in other disciplines (and not all branches of science are equal) thus it gives more probable results. So, to apply this to a subject you seem to be stuck on, say science and religion conflict. The scientific observations are observable and verifiable, sure we could have 10 observations all having the exact same errors in measurement, but that's not very probable. There could be something particular to our coordinates in space-time that manipulate energy and matter in such a way that it appears to follow different laws locally than it does in the rest of the universe, but based on astronomical observations, this doesn't seem very probable either.

Science is not mathematics, so it's not absolute, but through repeated observation and verification it's highly probable that the observations are real and thus that science is 'truth' (that's a word with so much nonsensical philosophical baggage that it's very use is nearly an abuse of the concept). Religion on the other hand relies on myths that are not observable or verifiable, they cannot be mathematically extrapolated based on current observations, thus it seems much less probable that they are true.

But axiomatic systems have inherent limitations due to the incompleteness theorems of Goedel.

This is a good point. Can the problem be resolved?

It essentially has, 'consistency' has been defined as 'as consistent as the natural numbers', granted one cannot prove the consistency of the natural numbers in any 'absolute' manner (whatever that means); but one can prove various axiomatic system to be as consistent as they are. Godel's Incompleteness theorem is an understood qualifier to every mathematical proof of consistency, sometimes explicitly stated, but it's in the realm of general knowledge so often omitted from the text.

It's theoretically possible that the natural numbers do create a contradiction, thus having only local consistency, if would be fascinating if someone could find such a contradiction, it would open up entire new fields in mathematics.

What of the contradictions in set theory? I am not challenging you. BTW, I am generally interested in this topic.

It is related to the problem with some self-referential statements such as the barbar in the village shaves everyone who does not shave himself.

but all that I ask is that people take a step back, undergo the thought experiment of Descartes, dismiss all presuppositions (not that I believe Descartes managed to do this, but I'll give him credit for trying), question everything you believe, demand proof for every thing said. Don't even take such things as gravity and EM forces for granted, go through the data yourself, analyze the experiments, recreate them yourself (assuming they're something you can recreate, most of us can't afford to build our own particle accelerator for example, we'll just have to rely on data from various sources and check it for consistency).

GiC,

Lurked here a long time. You are a smart *choice word*.

Descartes did not fail as such, because his project is impossible in the first place. One has to admire his commitment to his task and the brilliance of his writing and achievement of thought.

You cannot dismiss "all presuppositions" (How do you dismiss the project of "dismissing all presuppositions"?). Presuppositions are the very ground of our ability to engage in the world. We can make some more explicit, but we are never going to get "clear" about all our prejudices and this is not a "problem" as such.

We always come to every question too late. It is always in virtue of something(s) we are able to pose a question. That posing of the question might allow us to shed light on that which allowed the questioning (not that all questioning is a questioning of that which allows the questioning), but that questioning too occurs in virtue of something else, if the very questioning itself.

You probably recognize this as hermeneutics and are aware of how it became applied to understanding as such rather than just "religious texts".

On a practical, "thought experiment" note, how are you ever going to question "everything" for yourself? This would of course include the project of questioning of everything, which would include the project of questioning the questioning of everything and so on.

The mathematical natural sciences have their method and manner of questioning. And their method and rigor have become the dominant ideal of understanding of our time. The consequences of this turn in prevailing understanding of understanding are another discussion.

Logged

If you have PMed me, the mods have taken my ability to PM away. Please see my email if you wish to contact me during my time of trial.

As long as scientists never demand that their theories be treated on the same level as revealed truth, but of only impermanent and relative value, i.e. until someone comes along and disproves them, then I don't see a problem.

The only 'revealed truth' is mathematics and nothing in this universe or any universe, this reality or any reality, can ascend to that level of absoluteness. Everything but theoretical mathematics is merely a probabilistic analysis. The scientific method controls the variables better than is done in other disciplines (and not all branches of science are equal) thus it gives more probable results. So, to apply this to a subject you seem to be stuck on, say science and religion conflict. The scientific observations are observable and verifiable, sure we could have 10 observations all having the exact same errors in measurement, but that's not very probable. There could be something particular to our coordinates in space-time that manipulate energy and matter in such a way that it appears to follow different laws locally than it does in the rest of the universe, but based on astronomical observations, this doesn't seem very probable either.

Science is not mathematics, so it's not absolute, but through repeated observation and verification it's highly probable that the observations are real and thus that science is 'truth' (that's a word with so much nonsensical philosophical baggage that it's very use is nearly an abuse of the concept). Religion on the other hand relies on myths that are not observable or verifiable, they cannot be mathematically extrapolated based on current observations, thus it seems much less probable that they are true.

But axiomatic systems have inherent limitations due to the incompleteness theorems of Goedel.

This is a good point. Can the problem be resolved?

It essentially has, 'consistency' has been defined as 'as consistent as the natural numbers', granted one cannot prove the consistency of the natural numbers in any 'absolute' manner (whatever that means); but one can prove various axiomatic system to be as consistent as they are. Godel's Incompleteness theorem is an understood qualifier to every mathematical proof of consistency, sometimes explicitly stated, but it's in the realm of general knowledge so often omitted from the text.

It's theoretically possible that the natural numbers do create a contradiction, thus having only local consistency, if would be fascinating if someone could find such a contradiction, it would open up entire new fields in mathematics.

What of the contradictions in set theory? I am not challenging you. BTW, I am generally interested in this topic.

The contradictions simply mean that our current axiomatic system of set theory is wrong, probably not very wrong they seem to make a good approximation, but something's wrong. Mathematics certainly needs more work here. That doesn't mean I suggest we don't learn it, because the best way to correct the mistakes is to fully understand the system, how the axioms interacts, and what goes wrong in the very few instances where it does create a contradiction. I don't think the problems is with sets, per se, but rather with our understanding of sets.

To use a historical analogy in mathematics, there was great debate for centuries about whether Euclid's fifth postulate was an axiom or a theorem, in the 1820's it was finally determined that it was an essential axiom (assuming the opposite creates the equally consistent system of hyperbolic geometry). In that case, we were fortunate that Euclid had the foresight to understand that the fifth postulate was essential to the axiomatic system. It's quite possible that in set theory we have an unnecessary axiom or an axiom that is slightly incorrect. Perhaps we're trying to make set theory be too specific when it's inherently more general, perhaps another system is required within set theory to explain some mathematical phenomena we're trying to apply to it.

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

Yes, millions have died for false religions and ideologies. But I don't think anyone ever laid down their life for an empirical fact they knew to be false. At the time of Christ's resurrection, there was as yet no religion that demanded belief in the risen Christ. Everyone knew He was dead, and with a guard posted at the tomb under Pilate's seal to boot, there was absolutely no reason to doubt that His body was there. The Apostles all believed that Jesus Christ had failed. So you are asking me to believe that the disciples changed their minds, thought it would be a good idea to make up a story that Christ had risen, somehow persuade the guards that it was worth losing their lives if they could just open the tomb and let the disciples steal the body, and that they were happy to be killed or tortured in order to preserve this lie.

You see, although all these other religions and ideologies are false objectively speaking, but their followers believe them to be true. That is why they die for them. How do you account for people dying for something they believe to be false?

The same reason people struggle to maintain a dying system even though they know it has run its course. The reason people were willing to and did give their lives to preserve the dead Soviet Union. They had too much invested in the system to give it up so easily. These apostles had too much invested in their sect to give it up that easily, they had given up their jobs and earthly possessions to follow this man they viewed as a visionary and now he was dead, they were homeless, they had nothing. Without Jesus the movement was dead as was their positions in it. So, they decided that a story of a resurrection would help them maintain their popular support, heck they'd even be more visual members of the picture after Jesus was dead. Also, I do believe that these apostles honestly believed that what Christ taught was an important reform of the Jewish religion, Jesus was their vehicle towards this reform, they needed to maintain a connection to him in order to advance their reform movement. So they bribed or tricked the guards (assuming there were even guards and the apostles didn't add this latter to make their story seem more spectacular, even professional historians of the day were loose with the facts, history was viewed as a form of propaganda in the ancient world) and stole the body; this added fire to the myth and helped them secure the position they needed to advance their reform movement.

Martyrdom came later, by that point they were heavily invested in their reform movement, they probably did die for their beliefs; and I'm not saying that they were bad people for making up the resurrection, as I said before everyone was a bit looser with the facts back then than is expected in this day and age. Their beliefs were that the teachings of Jesus represented an improvement to traditional Judaism and the resurrection was a powerful myth that helped them to that end; to deny that myth after it had become so well established would have been damaging to their goals based on their real beliefs that the world needed the philosophical teachings of Jesus.

And, the empire could have ended up with worse religions (there were probably better ones too, but who knows, they may have become just as corrupted if they had achieved the power and status of Christianity), the apostles may have been right that the myth of Jesus' resurrection was a better myth than those commonly believed in the day. But that doesn't make them true and it doesn't make Jesus a 'god'.

I'm sorry but I do not believe anyone ever willingly died for communism knowing it to be a false ideology. You would have to provide some irrefutable examples. And I think if the Apostles did lie about the resurrection, that would have been very wicked and they would have probably deserved whatever they got from the Jews. I don't think lying is good for any reason.

You basically concede that the whole story is much easier to explain assuming the Resurrection did in fact occur, because now you have resorted to dismissing the accounts themselves. Of course, if you do that you can argue anything, making your assertions unfalsifiable.

But I'll let you guys back to talking about theoretical physics and other useless things. If you want, we can continue this discussion on another forum.

I'm sorry but I do not believe anyone ever willingly died for communism knowing it to be a false ideology. You would have to provide some irrefutable examples. And I think if the Apostles did lie about the resurrection, that would have been very wicked and they would have probably deserved whatever they got from the Jews. I don't think lying is good for any reason.

You basically concede that the whole story is much easier to explain assuming the Resurrection did in fact occur, because now you have resorted to dismissing the accounts themselves. Of course, if you do that you can argue anything, making your assertions unfalsifiable.

But I'll let you guys back to talking about theoretical physics and other useless things. If you want, we can continue this discussion on another forum.

If you open another thread and link to it I'll continue the conversation, but I don't want this one to get further off course.

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

I'm sorry but I do not believe anyone ever willingly died for communism knowing it to be a false ideology. You would have to provide some irrefutable examples. And I think if the Apostles did lie about the resurrection, that would have been very wicked and they would have probably deserved whatever they got from the Jews. I don't think lying is good for any reason.

You basically concede that the whole story is much easier to explain assuming the Resurrection did in fact occur, because now you have resorted to dismissing the accounts themselves. Of course, if you do that you can argue anything, making your assertions unfalsifiable.

But I'll let you guys back to talking about theoretical physics and other useless things. If you want, we can continue this discussion on another forum.

If you open another thread and link to it I'll continue the conversation, but I don't want this one to get further off course.

The problem I have discussing this issue is that no one can offer me repeatable and verifiable evidence.

Can anyone offer repeatable and verifiable evidence that six million Jews were gassed to death in the Nazi concentration camps? Can anyone offer repeatable and verifiable evidence that Antoine Lavoisier was guillotined at the time of the French revolution when a judge declared: "The Republic needs neither scientists nor chemists..."

The problem I have discussing this issue is that no one can offer me repeatable and verifiable evidence.

Can anyone offer repeatable and verifiable evidence that six million Jews were gassed to death in the Nazi concentration camps? Can anyone offer repeatable and verifiable evidence that Antoine Lavoisier was guillotined at the time of the French revolution when a judge declared: "The Republic needs neither scientists nor chemists..."

Good point. Historical and evidentiary evidence is not repeatable. They are verifiable, but not by controlled experiment, so any standard of truth that only accepts the results repeatable experiments as evidence is severely limited.

Is this thread that started out awesome really devolving into the false dichotomies of science vs. religion and reason vs. faith? ughhhh

Sorry that I got off track.With reference to the question as to whether or not the laws of physics vary throughout the universe, which "laws of physics" are they talking about? I think that some physicists believe that in the early days of the universe, 14 billion years ago, that some of the constants, such as alpha, the fine structure constant, may have been different from what it is now. However, the variation claimed appears to be extremely small and not everyone agrees.

Is this thread that started out awesome really devolving into the false dichotomies of science vs. religion and reason vs. faith? ughhhh

Sorry that I got off track.With reference to the question as to whether or not the laws of physics vary throughout the universe, which "laws of physics" are they talking about? I think that some physicists believe that in the early days of the universe, 14 billion years ago, that some of the constants, such as alpha, the fine structure constant, may have been different from what it is now. However, the variation claimed appears to be extremely small and not everyone agrees.

And even if there is a variation, we would seek out the system of rules that governs that variation... another constant... somewhere.

Is this thread that started out awesome really devolving into the false dichotomies of science vs. religion and reason vs. faith? ughhhh

Sorry that I got off track.With reference to the question as to whether or not the laws of physics vary throughout the universe, which "laws of physics" are they talking about? I think that some physicists believe that in the early days of the universe, 14 billion years ago, that some of the constants, such as alpha, the fine structure constant, may have been different from what it is now. However, the variation claimed appears to be extremely small and not everyone agrees.

And even if there is a variation, we would seek out the system of rules that governs that variation... another constant... somewhere.

I am not so sure that it is a matter of finding constants, since if there was a Big Bang and that was the point where t=0, as some have hypothesized, then we have a cosmological singularity, where these constants may not be valid.

In my opinion, physical laws are part of Creation, therefore, subject to change and, yes, to one day dissapear if let to themselves.

If laws were above creation, that would mean an entire new level of reality above physical reality, something materialists would deny, but many phiosophers woud welcome.

If laws were above creation, they could be either "mechanical" lifeless, consciousless laws, or be self-conscious living laws aka God.

If the laws were God Himself we would have a problem because this is a fallen universe where entropy reigns. We would have to assume that the Fall and Death are what God wants.

Because, through revelation, we know that is not the case, God does not want death, and He does not want the Fall, I can only conclude that the laws, and constants of physics are part of the created world. They were meant to be lifegiving, but after the fall they are corrupted. Entropy is for the physical universe what sin is for the soul. Therefore the laws are subject to change themselves.

Perhaps that is why some scientists want a God bound by physical laws?

It's not a problem of scientists only. Many scientists are pretty ok with a personal God above creation. The real issue is a divide about two mentalities about the divinity (this divide occurs in pagan religions as well): one mentality believes that even the divinity is under the laws of reality and the other believes that the divinity is utterly above it.

In Christian context, the RC I had contact with deeply believe, for example, that God must abide by the laws of Logic. Their reasoning is that Logic is an expression of the Logos, so it is not so much that God is "under" these laws, but He *is* these laws.

I find that to be just metaphysical pantheism, that is, instead of saying that the world in its totality is God, it says that the metaphysical laws of the world are God. I understand the tradition of the Catholic Orthodox Church to be that God is above every law (what makes sense since He is One and Three at the same time). The laws of logic were created by the Father through the Logos, but they are *not* the Logos Himself. Also, the idea that logic is the manifestation of the Logos seems flawed in the sense that according to Revelation, we live in Fallen, broken world. That might have been true in the world when it was "Paradise", but it certainly seems to not be the case now.

The evidence that the laws of physics are changing suggest converge with this last explanation, since God is immutable. Will there be a day when 1 +1 is not 2? Is it possible that in an inimaginably distant point in space-time 1 + 1 is not 2? I don't know. I concede it would mean the collapse of reality or at least reality as we are able to understand it. But, then again, if reality is creation, as with all creations it must die someday and must be dying right now. Eiher the Second Coming prevents this collapse or if the laws are really immutable themselves, then reality is eternal as the Greeks first imagined.

Then again, there is the possibility that Logic *is* the Logos and that in those points where the world is illogical (some of the uncertainties of quantics and in the human mind), these are precisely the points where creation is falling away from the Creator, and thus allowing enthropy to reign.

Logged

Many energies, three persons, two natures, one God, one Church, one Baptism.

Then again, there is the possibility that Logic *is* the Logos and that in those points where the world is illogical (some of the uncertainties of quantics and in the human mind), these are precisely the points where creation is falling away from the Creator, and thus allowing enthropy to reign.

So, entropy is the absence of God?

Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

The evidence that the laws of physics are changing suggest converge with this last explanation, since God is immutable. Will there be a day when 1 +1 is not 2? Is it possible that in an inimaginably distant point in space-time 1 + 1 is not 2? I don't know. I concede it would mean the collapse of reality or at least reality as we are able to understand it.

As far as logic goes, we read in Scripture: "For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a SOUND MIND." (II Tim.1:7) A sound mind may imply that as humans we must be logical and reasonable. Is God above logic? In some sense He is, but that does not mean that in order to know about God, we must be illogical. As far as 1+1 = 2 goes, it will not be true if you are speaking of velocities v, close to the speed of light c. In a case like that 1v + 1v < 2V since you cannot exceed c.

But do space and time really exist and independently existing entities or, considered in themselves, are they merely abstractions? What would be the meaning of time and space if we were to subtract all physical changing bodies?

But do space and time really exist and independently existing entities or, considered in themselves, are they merely abstractions? What would be the meaning of time and space if we were to subtract all physical changing bodies?

Ok... Just being silly.

Have you been reading Kant? In any case, physical descriptions of the universe soon after the big bang assumes the independent existence of time and space since there were no live bodies then.

But do space and time really exist and independently existing entities or, considered in themselves, are they merely abstractions? What would be the meaning of time and space if we were to subtract all physical changing bodies?

Ok... Just being silly.

Have you been reading Kant? In any case, physical descriptions of the universe soon after the big bang assumes the independent existence of time and space since there were no live bodies then.

What, only dead ones? Eeek!

(Just out of curiosity, how do you know this ?)

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire. May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

Wolfgang Smith graduated from Cornell University at age eighteen with majors in physics, philosophy, and mathematics. After taking an M.S. in physics at Purdue, he pursued research in aerodynamics, where his papers on diffusion fields provided the theoretical key to the solution of the re-entry problem for space flight. After receiving a Ph.D. in mathematics from Columbia University, Dr. Smith held faculty positions at M.I.T., U.C.L.A., and Oregon State University, where he served as Professor of Mathematics until his retirement in 1992. In addition to numerous technical publications (relating to differential topology), Dr. Smith has published three previous books and many articles dealing with foundational and interdisciplinary problems. He has been especially concerned to unmask conceptions of a scientistic kind widely accepted today as scientific truths.

And a short review

Quote

4.0 out of 5 stars

a breath of fresh air June 8, 2007

By some guy

As a graduate student in Physics, I can attest that this is an great book. Smith, who has evidently made much effort to study eastern and western philosophy in addition to physics, is able to do something so many other writers fail to do. In this volume, he succesfully separates good science-quantum mechanics-from bad metascience-the Cartesian dualism that splits the mind forever from the body, in addition to the embarrasing pseudo-philosophy of many physicists). If anything, this book shows how fallacious it is to assume that science has totally replaced philosophy. There are always metaphysical and logical assumptions underlying theory of natural science, even if we refuse to admit as much. The only caveat is that someone should have some familiarity with basic topic in quantum mechanics before trying to read this book

Logged

Many energies, three persons, two natures, one God, one Church, one Baptism.